Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38194252›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile Technology Intervention to Support Postabortion Care After Surgical Abortion (the FACTS Study Phase 3): Mixed Methods Prospective Pilot Study.

Roopan Gill, Gina Ogilvie, Wendy V Norman, Brian Fitzsimmons, Ciana Maher, Regina Renner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roopan GillDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6984-5800
Gina OgilvieWomen's Health Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5783-4493
Wendy V NormanWomen's Health Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4340-7882
Brian FitzsimmonsWomen's Health Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9824-465X
Ciana MaherWomen's Health Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3642-7554
Regina RennerWomen's Health Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7988-0877
University of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Canada, 1 in 3 women and people of gestational age undergo an abortion in their lifetime. Despite the liberal legal context, barriers continue to exist for women and people who can become pregnant to access this service.

objectiveThis study aims to (1) conduct a pilot study to demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of myPostCare to support follow-up care after a procedural abortion; (2) use the findings to understand whether myPostCare has the potential to improve contraceptive behavior and knowledge, emotional well-being, and sexual health knowledge; and (3) develop a better understanding of how innovative mobile solutions can support integrative health programs in British Columbia with the goal of expanding to other sites across Canada.

methodsPeople of gestational age (aged 14-45 y) who underwent a procedural abortion were recruited from 2 urban abortion facilities in British Columbia. The participants completed a baseline quantitative survey and were provided access to myPostCare for up to 30 days. A follow-up quantitative survey was sent via email on day 30. Qualitative interviews were conducted to explore user satisfaction and usability of myPostCare. Responses to the survey questions were summarized using descriptive statistics, and the system usability scale (SUS) was scored according to the instructions. A secure analytics platform was implemented to obtain data on the overall use of the website by users. Qualitative analysis was conducted with NVivo using a thematic analysis approach. This study was approved by the Women's and Children's Research Ethics Board.

resultsOverall, 62 participants were recruited (average age 30 y); 40% (25/62) of the participants completed the exit surveys, and 24% (6/25) consented to participate in the semistructured interviews; 40 participants had undergone an immediate postabortion intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, and 22 did not have an IUD inserted. Participants were satisfied with myPostCare. The SUS average score was 81.5 (SD 9.7; median 82.5, IQR 77.5-87.5), indicating high usability of the tool. Overall, 88% (22/25) of the participants changed their contraceptive method to an IUD. Web-based analytics demonstrated that there were 61 unique visitors to the site, and the top pages visited were Postprocedure Care, Emotional Well-Being, and Contraception Explorer. The longest time spent on the website was 56 minutes. The overall email open rate was 80%, with a click rate of 36%.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that communities and individuals are important collaborators in developing a mobile innovation that facilitates access to high-quality patient-centered abortion care. Through the cocreation process, a digital platform such as myPostCare highlighted a gap in abortion care in Canada, particularly around follow-up support after a procedural abortion.

Indexed as

abortiondigital healthhuman-centered designmHealthmixed methodsmobile healthqualitative researchsexual and reproductive health

Identifiers

PMID38194252
PMCPMC10807380
OpenAlexW4388376774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.